How Should Countries Retaliate Against the Steel/Aluminum Tariffs?

But European Union officials are already planning retaliatory actions, targeting products from politically sensitive Republican-run states, including the imposition of tariffs on Harley-Davidsons made in Speaker Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin; duties on bourbon made in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s home state of Kentucky; and duties on orange juice from Florida, a critical swing state.

-- Services are not covered in the same way goods are, so perhaps there are opportunities to retaliate against U.S. services in a way that does not violate trade rules, depending on what commitments were undertaken. For example, someone could ban Facebook. Or Twitter. Or just Trump's Twitter account.

-- Government procurement is only partially covered, so there are probably lots of opportunities to shift purchases to non-U.S. products.

-- Intellectual property is another possibility. Governments could order compulsory licensing of U.S. pharmaceuticals. Or invalidate trademarks held by the Trumps.

-- Canadian journalist Andrew Coyne suggests: "Rather than raise tariffs on American exports, why not lower them on exports of the same goods from other countries, giving them a leg up over the Americans in our market?"

-- Governments could build wind farms right near Trump's golf courses, which is something he hates.

Some of these options have the advantage of benefitting consumers, unlike the EU's proposed tariffs.

Any other suggestions?

Ideally, talking about these measures would be enough to discourage Trump from applying the tariffs, and none of these measures would actually be imposed.

(For what it's worth, I'm not convinced by the argument that because the national security argument is a sham, the measures can be treated as a safeguard measure, and therefore the retaliation is permitted.)

Comments

But European Union officials are already planning retaliatory actions, targeting products from politically sensitive Republican-run states, including the imposition of tariffs on Harley-Davidsons made in Speaker Paul Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin; duties on bourbon made in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s home state of Kentucky; and duties on orange juice from Florida, a critical swing state.

-- Services are not covered in the same way goods are, so perhaps there are opportunities to retaliate against U.S. services in a way that does not violate trade rules, depending on what commitments were undertaken. For example, someone could ban Facebook. Or Twitter. Or just Trump's Twitter account.

-- Government procurement is only partially covered, so there are probably lots of opportunities to shift purchases to non-U.S. products.

-- Intellectual property is another possibility. Governments could order compulsory licensing of U.S. pharmaceuticals. Or invalidate trademarks held by the Trumps.

-- Canadian journalist Andrew Coyne suggests: "Rather than raise tariffs on American exports, why not lower them on exports of the same goods from other countries, giving them a leg up over the Americans in our market?"

-- Governments could build wind farms right near Trump's golf courses, which is something he hates.

Some of these options have the advantage of benefitting consumers, unlike the EU's proposed tariffs.

Any other suggestions?

Ideally, talking about these measures would be enough to discourage Trump from applying the tariffs, and none of these measures would actually be imposed.

(For what it's worth, I'm not convinced by the argument that because the national security argument is a sham, the measures can be treated as a safeguard measure, and therefore the retaliation is permitted.)